As opposed to you "left-wing" people who think government is the solution to all your problems.
I want to thank you for providing that definition. Now please never call me "left-wing" again. I mean I really don't think its bad to be left or right, but I am not either in a strict way, and certainly do not believe gov't is the solution to all your problems.
But again I point out the irony, the Iraq War's premise is that gov't is the solution to all your problems. Maybe now you can understand why people with conservative positions actually can dislike the Iraq War.
I went to the same schools (mostly low income black middle school/high school) and I provide for my family with little government help.
If you worked in the army then you made all your money from from the gov't, and thus the taxpayer. That would be just like the people employed to build and maintain levee systems.
My point is the education systems, even though Louisiana ranks among the lowest, if not the lowest, education system in the US; still work. That's where I got most of my education, with the exception of my last 2 years of highschool, where I went to a private christain school
Your poor logic skills, and grasp of basic science, does not suggest that wherever you went "worked" for you. Although this seems like an ad hominem it really isn't. You seem to avoid logic in your arguments (or analyzing your citations), and repeatedly mischaracterize scientific theories.
What I think happens is that the welfare recipients don't have any motivation to change the status quo. They have a house. They have food. They have income from their jobs. Why shake things up?
The same can and should be said for corporate welfare. The singular difference is that when poor people get money from the gov't, the money ends back in the economy as they spend as much as they get. Wealthy and corporate recipients use their benefits to create personal wealth to remove money from the economy.
No medical care? I still don't know anyone that has been turned away from a hostpital. Women who have zero insurance can still go to the women and children's hospital and have their babies for free. Free of course meaning others pay for it, but free to them.
It sure as hell does happen. In fact in Chicago there was a scandal when a person died outside of a hospital because he was not covered and so they could not admit him. In the end it was decided no one was at fault because that is how the system works.
I will add that I was poor for a very long time and also quite ill. I could not get ANY of the tests required to diagnose my condition. Without coverage there was nothing that could be done until possibly I was on the verge of death.
You might want to ask how much we end up having to pay as a whole by having to treat the poor in emergency settings only (if and when we treat them), rather than in preventative ways. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure and all that.
It also seems a bit silly to be the only first world nation (except Holland as of January) to not have a socialized medical system. The proof is in, and they really do work.
As it is the system we have is the same, except with higher prices, and no guarantee that the central location you pay for your "medical insurance" will in fact pay for your costs when you become ill, if in fact you can afford insurance in the first place.
Socialized medicine is not an argument that gov't is an answer to people's problems, but a benefit we can give ourselves so that illness does not become financially debilitating. Its choosing a single, noncommerical HMO, which inherently reduces costs and provides better coverage.
holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
™ Version 4.2